The U.S. travel technology firm Sabre may not ring an immediate bell, and perhaps you’ve not yet heard…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
On Sabre/Farelogix Merger, DOJ Mustn’t Undertake a Misguided Antitrust Boondoggle

The U.S. travel technology firm Sabre may not ring an immediate bell, and perhaps you’ve not yet heard of its proposed acquisition of Farelogix, but it looms as one of the most important antitrust cases to approach trial since AT&T/Time-Warner. The transaction’s most significant aspect is the way in which it offers a perfect illustration of overzealous bureaucratic antitrust enforcement, and the way that can delay and also punish American consumers. Specifically, the transaction enhances rather than inhibits market competition, and will benefit both travelers and the travel industry by accelerating innovation.  That’s in part because Sabre and Farelogix aren’t head-to-head market competitors, but rather complementary businesses.  While Sabre serves customers throughout the…[more]

January 13, 2020 • 03:53 pm

Liberty Update

CFIFs latest news, commentary and alerts delivered to your inbox.
Jester's CourtroomLegal tales stranger than stranger than fiction: Ridiculous and sometimes funny lawsuits plaguing our courts.
Tom Cotton Schools Obama, Iran Leaders on the Constitution Print
By Ashton Ellis
Wednesday, March 11 2015
The logic and clarity of Cotton's argument is so strong, the Obama administration and its allies refuse to debate the substance of it.

Senator Tom Cotton is out to teach the Iranian leadership a lesson about the U.S. Constitution, and is getting no help from the Obama administration.

Earlier this week, Cotton wrote – and forty-six other Republican U.S. Senators signed – an open letter to the Iranian government explaining the short shelf life of any deal that allows them to develop a nuclear weapon without congressional approval.  

Here are the key passages from the letter: 

“It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system. Thus, we are writing to bring to your attention two features of our Constitution – the power to make binding international agreements and the different character of federal offices – which you should seriously consider as negotiations progress.

“…under our Constitution, while the president negotiates international agreements, Congress plays the significant role of ratifying them. In the case of a treaty, the Senate must ratify it by a two-thirds vote. A so-called congressional-executive agreement requires a majority vote in both the House and the Senate (which, because of procedural rules, effectively means a three-fifths vote in the Senate). Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement.

“…President Obama will leave office in January 2017, while most of us will remain in office beyond then – perhaps decades.

“What these two constitutional provisions mean is that we will consider any agreement regarding your nuclear-weapons program that is not approved by the Congress as nothing more than an executive agreement between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei. The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.”

All of this is true. Just like President Obama’s other unilateral executive actions – amnesty for illegal immigrants, unapproved carbon emissions standards and ammunition round-ups, among others – any decision of his that is not backed by congressional approval is subject to immediate termination once he leaves office. It’s the price of ruling via executive whim. When the executive changes, so does the policy.

The logic and clarity of Cotton’s argument is so strong, the Obama administration and its allies refuse to debate the substance of it. Instead, they prefer to denigrate Cotton.

Javad Zarif, Iran’s foreign minister, said, “This kind of communication is unprecedented and undiplomatic.” He likened it to a “propaganda campaign” that seeks to distort reality to serve an ideological outcome.

Truth may be unwelcome in diplomacy, but it is necessary to secure a lasting agreement. As Cotton explained, “Many Iran experts will tell you that Iran’s leadership doesn’t fully understand our constitutional system. In fact, some of the president’s own senior aides have said that’s why the Congress shouldn’t pass conditional, prospective sanctions, or shouldn’t pass a bill requiring a review period, because Iran’s leaders wouldn’t understand it.”

Iran’s foreign minister may prefer to negotiate within a context he’s comfortable with – a strongman leader whose authority comes not by consent but by personal will. But that’s not how America’s constitutional system works. Misunderstanding that reality now could lead to bitter reactions down the road.

Unfortunately, Javad Zarif isn’t alone in his contempt for constitutional norms. U.S. Vice President Joseph Biden issued a statement rebuking Cotton and his colleagues for publishing a document that is “beneath the dignity” of the U.S. Senate. Perhaps only Joe Biden could get away with saying that explaining how the Constitution works is “beneath the dignity” of an institution created to uphold it.

Cotton’s letter to Iran should be a wake-up call to the Obama administration. If the president continues to resist calls from Congress to submit any nuclear deal for ratification, then it should at least be clear to the Iranian leadership that this is an agreement that probably lasts no longer than Obama’s hold on power.

That may be a reality President Obama and his negotiating partners in the Iranian regime are loathe to contemplate, but it is true nonetheless.

Question of the Week   
Which one of the following was the first African-American soloist to appear at the Metropolitan Opera House in New York City?
More Questions
Quote of the Day   
 
"If there were such egregious misconduct that the public was convinced of the need to remove Trump, such that two-thirds of the Senate would ignore partisan ties and do just that, there would be no partisan stunts. Democratic leaders would have worked cooperatively with their GOP counterparts, as was done in prior impeachments. They would have told the president: 'Sure, you can have your lawyers here…[more]
 
 
—Andrew C. McCarthy, National Review
— Andrew C. McCarthy, National Review
 
Liberty Poll   

Should witnesses be called for the Senate impeachment trial, which could take weeks or even months, or be restricted to the record and evidence already produced by the House?